Leader of the House of Lords

Leader’s Group on Governance

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I have today appointed a Leader’s Group, chaired by Baroness Shephard of Northwold, to consider governance arrangements in the House of Lords. Baroness Doocey, Lord Kirkham, Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall, Baroness Taylor of Bolton and Lord Turnbull have agreed to serve on the group. The group will consider how to ensure that domestic committee decision-making in the House of Lords is effective, transparent and accountable. In particular, it will examine domestic committee decision-making structures, including which decisions go to which committee, or are referred between committees, and which decisions are remitted to the House; and consider what arrangements are necessary to uphold the interests of the House of Lords as an equal partner when making decisions alongside, or sharing services with, the House of Commons. I expect that the group will report by the Christmas recess.

Ministry of Justice

Guardianship of the property and affairs of missing persons

Lord Faulks: I am pleased to announce that following its consideration of the responses to the consultation paper published by the Ministry of Justice on 27 August 2014 the Government has decided to create the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person.   The Government strongly supports the creation of the new legal status and will now prepare the necessary primary and secondary legislation and guidance to enable the proposed scheme to be implemented as quickly as possible. In this task we will continue to work with stakeholders to design a scheme that can be implemented at minimum cost and operated with minimum problems.   The timing of the introduction of the legislation will be decided by Ministers in the next Parliament. Nonetheless, given the importance of this measure, the strong support to date from all sides and its own commitment to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, the Government hopes that legislation will be brought forward without delay in the new Parliament.   The key features of the proposed scheme will be: · A guardian will be required to act in the best interests of the missing person and in this respect will be subject to duties similar to those of a trustee. · The guardian will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and will be required to file accounts in much the same way as a Deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. · A guardian will be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest in the property and affairs of the missing person. · The appointment will be for a period of up to four years with the possibility of applying for an extension for up to another four years.   The replies to the consultation are described and analysed in the response paper published by the Ministry of Justice today.  I have placed a copy of the response paper in the library of each House of Parliament. It is also is available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk .



Consultation response
(PDF Document, 207.41 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS449

Cabinet Office

State of the Estate in 2013/14

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Right Honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Francis Maude) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement: I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to Section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2013/14”. This report describes the efficiency and sustainability of the Government's Civil Estate and records the progress that Government has made since the previous year and since 2010. The report is published on an annual basis.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS450

Review of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Right Honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Francis Maude) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement: The Government has asked Sir Gerry Grimstone to lead a review of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will be the first review of the Office's status and role since the role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was created by the Public Appointments Order in Council 1995 on 23 November 1995. Although the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is technically not a public body, the review will follow the guidance on conducting a triennial review. The review’s purpose will be to establish the continuing need for the Office, and to examine its scope of responsibilities. In particular the review will consider the Office's role in regulating the processes by which Ministers make appointments to the boards of certain public bodies and certain statutory offices. The review’s terms of reference have been placed in the library of the House. Sir Gerry will seek input from a wide range of individuals, including current and former Ministers, current and former officials and advisers, the Government’s Non-Executive Directors, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Parliament, public bodies and those who have gone through an appointments process. The review will report in the Summer.  TERMS OF REFERENCE. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was created by the Public Appointments Order in Council 1995 on 23 November 1995, following recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan). We are now twenty years on, and this provides a suitable opportunity to review the role of the Commissioner and the processes around public appointments. In the light of the range and diversity of public appointments, it is important to ensure that the procedures are both effective and proportionate. The review will be led by Sir Gerry Grimstone and will report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS448

HM Treasury

Convergence Programme

Lord Deighton: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (David Gauke) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.Article 121 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the UK to send an annual Convergence Programme to the European Commission reporting upon its fiscal situation and policies. The UK’s Convergence Programme will be sent to the European Commission by 30 April. This deadline was set in accordance with the European Semester timetable for both Convergence and National Reform Programmes. The Government supports the European Semester which plays an important role in EU surveillance of economic and fiscal policy. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires that the content of the Convergence Programme must be drawn from an assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position which has been presented to Parliament by the Government for its approval. This assessment is based on the Budget 2015 report and the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and it is this content, not the Convergence Programme itself, which requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the Act. Article 121, along with Article 126 of the TFEU, is the legal basis for the Stability and Growth Pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires Member States to avoid excessive government deficits. Although the UK is bound by the Stability and Growth Pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to "endeavour to avoid" excessive deficits. Unlike the euro area Member States, the UK is not subject to sanctions at any stage of the European Semester process. Subject to the progress of Parliamentary business, debates will be held on 24 March for the House of Commons and on 25 March for the House of Lords in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the Convergence Programme is sent to the Commission. While the Convergence Programme itself is not subject to Parliamentary approval or amendment, I have deposited advanced copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses and copies will be available through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The UK's Convergence Programme will be available electronically via HM Treasury’s website after it is sent to the European Commission. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS447

Department for Work and Pensions

Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Annual Plan 2015-16

Lord Freud: Later today I will place a copy of the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s Annual Plan for 2015-2016 in the House Library, I attach a copy of the plan to this statement. The Annual Plan will also be published on the ONR’s website. I can confirm, in accordance with Schedule 7, Section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.



ONR Annual Plan 2015-16
(PDF Document, 190.33 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS444

Department for Transport

HS2 Update

Baroness Kramer: My Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin), has made the following Ministerial Statement:Following the publication of ‘HS2: On track’[1] on 12 March which set out the good progress we have made on HS2 over the last five years, I thought it would be helpful to give an update on the latest project developments. The hybrid Bill for the first phase of HS2 is making good progress through Parliament. By the end of today the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Select Committee will have sat for 76 days and heard almost 400 petitions, almost twice as many as the Crossrail Committee heard in 21 months of sittings. I am sure the whole House will welcome the commitment and seriousness with which the Committee has gone about the very important task of ensuring that the project strikes the right balance between the needs of affected communities and the environment, and the long-term needs of the country as a whole. We are continuing to develop our plans for the redevelopment of Euston station and are working with the local community to ensure we keep disruption to a minimum. On 18 March we signed an agreement with the London Borough of Camden that fulfils our pledge to social rented tenants affected by Euston’s redevelopment. We have now ensured that replacement housing will be available for all 136 social rented properties in Camden affected by HS2. On 20 March we published a report on the Northern Transport Strategy. Developed jointly with Transport for the North, the strategy sets out our ambition for a world class northern transport system, as well as the concrete steps we are taking to get there. The Government has already committed £13 billion of investment to improving connectivity across the North. The report set out how we will work with Transport for the North to build on this investment, including developing a new 'TransNorth' rail system to slash journey times between major northern cities and taking immediate action to simplify rail fares across the North. In addition to this, I have set out my commitment to get HS2 to the North sooner, delivering benefits to businesses and individuals more quickly. Therefore, subject to further analysis and decisions on the preferred route, I intend to prepare a dedicated hybrid Bill to lay during the next Parliament with a view to bringing HS2 to Crewe earlier than planned. Finally, we have moved another step forward to realising our ambition of creating a world-class railway, with the appointment by HS2 Ltd of award winning designer Sadie Morgan as the Chair of an independent design panel, which will advise on the delivery of the HS2 Design Vision, published today. This will set the bar for all future HS2 design. I welcome this progress and am pleased to be able to report that the momentum of the HS2 project remains strong to deliver a railway which will be an engine for growth in our country.  [1] Department for Transport (2015), HS2: On track, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-on-track 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS445

Rail franchising: Great Western

Baroness Kramer: My Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin), has made the following Ministerial Statement:Today I have announced the successful conclusion of negotiations for a new directly awarded franchise agreement with First Greater Western Limited (FGW). This deal will see FGW continue to run passenger rail services on the Great Western franchise until the start of the services on the next competed franchise, which is expected in April 2019. The direct award secures an operator for the franchise for the three and a half years from September 2015 (with an optional 13 period extension at the Secretary of State’s sole discretion); through a period of unprecedented change on the franchise and the most significant upgrade of infrastructure and rolling stock for a generation.   The passenger benefits secured in this direct award are considerable, taking advantage of this government’s significant investment in new infrastructure, electrification of the route, new Intercity Express trains on long distance routes and new high capacity electric trains in the Thames Valley, which will enable the cascade of diesel trains to the West and South West of England where additional capacity is badly needed.   The franchise overall will see an increase in capacity of around 25 percent, or 3 million seats per year as well as significant increases in service frequency and journey time savings. This will include a 2 trains per hour service to the South West of England, an earlier arrival into Plymouth, and double the number of trains to Cornwall. My Department will also work with FGW to improve the performance and quality of the rolling stock serving the south west of England, particularly for intercity services, during this Direct Award; to complement the introduction of the IEP trains.   Other benefits secured by the Direct Award include investment of £30m to create 2,000 more car park spaces, additional customer information systems, CCTV, ticket gatelines, and a fund of £2.5m for station access improvements, a £3.5m station development match fund, as well as extension of Station Travel Plans at a further 20 main interchange stations. The operator will also support the government’s commitment to get more people into work by providing an annual fund and training opportunities for young and unemployed people, as well as providing 85 modern apprenticeships by the franchise end.   New passenger satisfaction, punctuality and cleanliness targets will be introduced on the franchise. We expect FGW to continue to provide improving standards for its 99m annual passengers including the provision of free Wi-Fi on all train fleets. In addition the company will deepen its engagement with communities and stakeholders so that all the users of the franchise can continue to have a real influence in how it can continue to improve services.   Reaching this agreement with FGW marks a new chapter for the Great Western railway and builds on the success of my Department’s rail franchising programme; working in partnership with the rail industry to deliver far better services for passengers as well as value for money for the taxpayer. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS442

Department for Communities and Local Government

European Regional Development Fund

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles) made the following Written Ministerial Statement on Friday 20 March 2015.I wish to inform the House today of the launch of the €3.6 billion (approximately £2.9 billion) England European Regional Development Fund Operational Programme for 2014-20. From 20 March 2015, applicants will be able to apply for funding to invest in projects that support innovation and boost businesses across local economies in England. This is on the basis of progress my Department has made in agreeing the major points of principle with the European Commission about the European Regional Development Fund Operational Programme. By launching the programme and project calls on 20 March, local teams will be able to begin assessing applications. This will mean that we will be able to sign funding agreements as soon as the Operational Programme has been formally adopted by the European Commission, which we anticipate happening in June.  Decentralising funding to local economic areas The 2014-2020 European Regional Development Fund Operational Programme is the most locally-led that we have ever had in England. We have abolished unelected regional quangos that were previously in charge of the schemes and given an important role to Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local partners to shape and influence how the money is spent. We also believe local partners should have a direct role in decision-making outside of a formally delegated arrangement, to further increase local engagement. The European Commission ruled this out however, as not being compliant with European Union regulations. We have nevertheless ensured a strong local role for partners, whose advice will be pivotal in determining the priorities of project calls and the funding decisions that are taken – ensuring that projects are focused on the interests of local communities. We are committed to reviewing partnership arrangements in 12 months’ time and will effect changes as necessary. Accordingly, the Operational Programme is built on the priorities of England’s 39 Local Enterprise Partnership areas, and all funding decisions will be taken within this framework; local needs are therefore embedded into the programme and the funding decisions that will follow. As a result, the Operational Programme is made up of the following funding priorities:strengthening research, technological development and innovation,improving access to, and use and quality of information and communications technology,increasing the competitiveness of small and medium sized enterprises,supporting the shift towards a low carbon economy in all sectors,supporting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management,preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency,encouraging sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly,technical assistance. To ensure that local areas can fully exploit the range of European programmes that are available for the 2014-20 period, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and part of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development are being combined in England into a single local growth package. This will be called the ‘European Structural and Investment Funds Growth Programme’. Local areas will benefit from combined allocations that support this approach. Navigating the European Union bureaucracy The programme has to operate within the rigid rules set by the European Commission. There are significant financial risks involved in running what are highly complex and bureaucratic European programmes. These can carry large financial penalties for which the Government – and therefore UK taxpayers – always remains financially liable. That is why the Government has completely overhauled the way in which European Regional Development Fund programmes have been managed in England. Previously, the schemes were poorly overseen by the Government Offices for the Regions (2000-06 programme) and the Regional Development Agencies (2007-13 programme). The Coalition Government inherited in 2010 a situation facing hundreds of millions of pounds of liabilities for breaches of the complex rules. We have tackled this and sorted out £236 million of financial liabilities which we took on in 2010, and are on track to completely close the 2000-06 programmes with a dramatically reduced financial liability. In addition, all programmes in 2007-13 are maintained through an enhanced, disciplined and effective management process to minimise potential liabilities. Ensuring value for taxpayers’ money Every euro cent received from European funding schemes is UK taxpayers’ money. The European Regional Development Fund is a circular programme. UK taxpayers’ money is given to the European Union budget. Under the Fund, a local project receives a contract, spends money and then claims from DCLG. DCLG then claims funds back from the European Commission. The whole process goes through a complex auditing process involving DCLG auditors and then European Union auditors. There is a debate to be had about the involvement of the United Kingdom’s future involvement with these types of Structural Funds. There is a strong argument that it would be better if Structural Funds were repatriated - and the United Kingdom had its money back, cutting out the middle man of the European Commission. Turning to the 2014-20 programme, we think it is important that the role of UK taxpayers in funding these programmes is clear to all. That is why projects which are funded with Government money will be branded with the UK Government logo. Spending public funds wisely is central to our Government’s approach in getting maximum value for money for the taxpayer. Reflecting the changes we have made to DCLG grant agreements, as I outlined in my statement of 23 February 2015, Official Report, HCWS292, we are also inserting new provisions into the funding agreements to stop taxpayer-funded lobbying with these European funds. The Institute of Economic Affairs which has undertaken detailed research in to the widespread and unhealthy practice of taxpayers-funded lobbying and so-called ‘sock puppets’. Their analysis has also identified the spending of millions of taxpayers' money on the 'European project' – Euro funds going to groups to promote ever closer European integration, bigger EU budgets and more EU regulation. This is not a good use of public funds. Our funding guidance now states: "The following costs are not eligible expenditure:- Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence the UK Parliament, Government, political parties, European Union Institutions, or inappropriately attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action in the United Kingdom or the European Union.” Nothing in this prevents third party institutions from campaigning with their own private funds for whatever causes they want, but they should not do it with taxpayers’ money. The myth of “free money” from Europe My Department also oversees a number of ‘European Territorial Cooperation’ (or, INTERREG) programmes. In the past, these programmes have suffered due to poor management and investing money in unsuitable projects which have not been consistently focussed on economic growth. My Department will ensure that 2014-20 programmes invest money much more efficiently. Under the last Administration, funds were wasted on vanity projects for artificial pan-national Euro regions, such as the “Transmanche”. Pointless expenditure included a series of Cross-Channel Cycle Lanes, films on European fairy tales, a Cross-Channel Circus, a human treadmill, transnational dance troupes and an Atlas which renamed the English Channel as “Le Pond”. Some parts of the public and voluntary sector have viewed European funding as “free money”, and not applied the same financial discipline that would apply to the direct spending of UK Government funding. Yet, there is no ‘free’ money from the European Union: there is only UK taxpayers’ money. Indeed, the UK is even more of a net loser given the massive amount spent on bureaucracy, complex auditing and projects that would never have been funded by the UK Government directly. We have therefore sought to ensure that the 2014-20 schemes focus on jobs and growth, as well as tackling genuine maritime-related issues such as coastal flooding. I will shortly be writing to partners to outline our robust approach in defending the interests of UK taxpayers with regard to INTERREG programmes.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS440

Unpublished research reports commissioned by the last Administration

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My hon Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins) made the following Written Ministerial Statement on Friday 201 March 2015. The last Administration spent £26 million on DCLG research reports that were never published. Throughout this Parliament, we have taken steps to publish this significant backlog of reports. We are publishing a further batch today, representing £9.5 million (excl. VAT) of taxpayers’ money. The reports and findings do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. They are not necessarily a reflection of this Government’s policies, and should be treated as a statement of the last Administration. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency. (i) Enhancing Young People's Involvement in Regeneration: New Deal for Communities and the Young Advisors Initiative. This report explores youth engagement and empowerment through a focus on the implementation of the DCLG devised ‘Young Advisors’ initiative which began with a pilot hosted by four New Deal for Communities and eventually comprised 43 projects hosted by a variety of organisations. This research was commissioned in 2005 as part of a programme of research on New Deal for Communities. The total cost of the New Deal for Communities research programme was £8,897,113 (excl VAT). (ii) New Deal for Communities: National Evaluation Phase Two: Technical Report. This Technical Report provides a wide range of supporting evidence including details of the design of the New Deal for Communities Programme and the national evaluation, data sources, statistical methods, analytical tools and outputs from analyses undertaken as part of New Deal for Communities Evaluation. This research was commissioned in 2005 as part of a programme of research on New Deal for Communities. The total cost of the New Deal for Communities research programme was £8,897,113 (excl VAT). (iii) Housing Support in the Growth Areas - research report and Excel model guide. This report considers how the need for housing-related support, funded through the Supporting People programme, is likely to change as the population in the Growth Areas continued to change. The report was commissioned in 2008 at a cost of £60,000, excluding VAT. (iv) London 2012 Olympics: Regeneration legacy evaluation framework. This report presents a Framework for the Department to measure the regeneration impacts and legacy of the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. The report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £95,780, excluding VAT (v) Coalfields regeneration: evaluation framework report. This monitoring and evaluation framework builds on previous research into coalfield areas. It provides an interim evaluation of the coalfields regeneration programmes in England. The study was commissioned in April 2005 at a cost of £270,517, excluding VAT. (vi) Timely Information for Citizens Pilots: Evaluation Summary. This report was commissioned to maximise and disseminate the learning from the ‘Timely Information for Citizens’ pilots. The evaluation aims to provide evidence on the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘Timely Information for Citizens’ programme; outcomes from the pilots and ‘what works’; and transferable learning. This research was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £98,150 (excl VAT). (vii) Working Neighbourhoods Fund Evaluation: feasibility report. This report builds upon the findings of the Scoping Study which was published in February 2010 and specifies the work that needs to be undertaken to complete an interim evaluation of the Working Neighbourhoods Fund. This report was commissioned in 2008 at a cost of £113,506 (excl VAT). To help pay off the deficit left by the last Administration, this Government has sought to deliver better value for money for future research and ensured that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the public policy benefits obtained. My Department now has far more rigorous scrutiny and challenge processes for commissioned research. We commission less, and we do it better. Copies of these reports are attached and are available on the Department's website.



WNF Scoping Study
(PDF Document, 451.31 KB)




NDC Evaluation
(PDF Document, 1.15 MB)




London 2012 Olympics
(PDF Document, 1015.87 KB)




Housing Growth Report
(PDF Document, 467.27 KB)




Housing Growth Guide
(PDF Document, 766.1 KB)




Enhancing Young people
(PDF Document, 353.34 KB)




Coalfields Regeneration
(PDF Document, 156.43 KB)




time citizen
(PDF Document, 999.75 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS438

Housing Update

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My hon Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis) made the following Written Ministerial Statement on Friday 20 March 2015.I would like to update hon. Members on the some of the recent actions that the Coalition Government is undertaking on housing. Providing more housing for older people I would like to update hon. Members on recent measures the Government has taken to encourage the development of more housing for older people. We are committed to addressing the challenge of our ageing population. The Government is working to help older people to plan ahead and to provide them with choice over the housing that best meets their needs. This could help people to live independently for longer, and reduce costs for health and social care services. Helping older people to remain in their own homes and preventing or delaying the need to go into hospital or residential care can help improve the quality of life for older people and reduce costs to local services. Providing more options for older people to move to more suitable housing, when they want to, can also help to free up larger homes for use by families. Strengthening planning guidance: The National Planning Policy Framework already requires local planning authorities to plan for a mix of housing based on current and future populations, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community, including older people. This applies to specialist accommodation as well as general housing for older people. Many older people do not want or need specialist accommodation or care and may wish to live in general housing, or in homes which can be adapted to meet any change in their needs. Shortly we are publishing updated planning guidance to reinforce our expectation that all local planning authorities will assess and plan to meet the diverse housing needs of older people in their local communities. Local planning authorities need to be clear about the future level of both general and specialist accommodation that is needed for older people in their area. There are already many great examples of innovative, well-designed housing schemes which help older people to live as independently as possible, such as the Joseph Rowntree retirement community scheme at Hartrigg Oaks in York and Lark Hill Retirement Village in Nottingham which both provide a broad range of options for older people, with support on-site as people’s needs change. There is help available to support local planning authorities to identify the type of housing that is required, such as the Strategic Housing for Older People toolkit produced by the Housing Learning and Improvement Network and Association of Directors of Social Services. The Planning Advisory Service will support local authorities in ensuring their plans recognise the needs of their older people by promoting and sharing best practice. Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund: Increasing choice for older people who want to move to more suitable accommodation is important in helping people to live independently for longer. The Government is supporting the development of more affordable housing for older people and adults with disabilities and mental health problems, through the Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund. Phase 1 of the programme is on track to provide over 4,000 new homes by 2018, and the Department of Health has recently announced a further phase of up to £155 million for new homes for older people and disabled adults. Specialist housing providers, local authorities and other groups are invited to put forward bids for Phase 2, which outside of London will prioritise housing for people with mental health problems and encourage the provision of private market housing available for rent, shared ownership and purchase. Inside London the focus will be on delivering additional privately funded housing for older people, disabled people and people with mental health problems. Right to Buy Social Mobility Fund: The Government also recently announced a new £42 million fund in 2015-16 to help council tenants who are eligible for Right to Buy to purchase a home on the open market. This will prioritise several groups of council tenants, including older people and will give those older people an opportunity to buy a home which is more suitable for their needs, or closer to family or support networks. Improved Information and Advice: It is important that older people and their family have access to independent information and advice on their housing and care options to enable them to plan ahead and make the right choices. The Government recently announced a further £1 million funding for the FirstStop online and telephone information and advice service. This will enable it to continue in 2015 -16 and to expand its local partner service which provides face-to-face advice to older people who need support with making the right choices about their housing and care. Increasing house building by councils In England, council house building starts are now at a 23 year high and twice as many council homes have been built in the last 4 years than from 1997 to 2009.  For local authorities, the self-financing reforms of 2012 which abolished the unpopular housing subsidy system have given stock-holding councils greater freedoms and the flexibility to manage their own housing businesses. Local authorities are now building again and more homes have been built since 2010 than in the last thirteen years combined. However, this has been at a time where we also needed to address the deficit left by the previous Administration and it was necessary to place limits on the amount of indebtedness a local authority could hold on its housing business. Despite the limits on indebtedness that have been put in place the current 166 stock holding councils have borrowing headroom of over £3 billion which they can use to manage, maintain and renew their stock. The Government has also allocated an additional £222 million borrowing to 36 councils to support the provision of over 3,000 new affordable homes. As councils are now taking the opportunities that self-financing has brought to start developing new homes again and are looking at a number of different ways in which to do this, the Government therefore thinks it would be helpful to set out policy in this area. The Government’s policy is that where a local authority is developing or acquiring and retaining new social or affordable homes for rent, that they should be brought forward using the powers available to them under part II of the Housing Act 1985 and that housing accounted for through the Housing Revenue Account. Where the numbers of units are very small – up to 200 units - the Secretary of State will consider, on application, issuing an exemption from the requirement to hold a Housing Revenue Account in line with one of the recommendations made by Natalie Elphicke and Keith House in their independent review into the role of local authorities in housing supply. If an authority is retaining more than 200 units for rent it should reopen its Housing Revenue Account and discuss with the Department the setting of a new indebtedness limit. The Government is aware that some authorities may be using their general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011 to develop new social or affordable housing and accounting for that stock in its General Fund. Accounting for stock in this way is not in line with Government policy and if councils continue to develop social or affordable stock which they fail to account for within the Housing Revenue Account the Secretary of State will consider issuing a direction under section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to bring that stock into the Housing Revenue Account. However, the requirement to account for stock in the Housing Revenue Account does not include accommodation being used to prevent homelessness or end a homelessness duty in the private rented sector, or for use as temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation, including for homelessness purposes, would not normally be held within the Housing Revenue Account. A key element of the Government’s drive to support people to achieve their aspiration for home ownership is through the reinvigorated Right to Buy. More than 33,000 new homeowners have been created since 2012 through the reinvigoration of the scheme. And we are giving more tenants the opportunity to buy their home, by increasing discounts in line with inflation and, subject to Royal Assent to the Deregulation Bill, taking forward a change in the minimum eligibility criteria, from five years to three years public sector tenancy. For the first time, we have ensured that local authorities can keep the receipts from additional Right to Buy sales to invest in the provision of new affordable homes for rent. This is because we recognize the valuable role that local authorities can play in providing new homes for local people. It is important that new council tenants should have access to the Right to Buy, and that new homes should not be built by councils which are excluded from the Right to Buy. In order to be eligible, local authority tenants need to have a secure tenancy. All forms of secure council tenancies are subject to the Right to Buy, including new flexible tenancies, regardless of whether they are accounted for in the local authority’s Housing Revenue Account or the General Fund. A number of local authorities have established local housing companies to help deliver local housing solutions. The Government recognises the benefits that public private partnerships can bring in supporting new forms of housing, and notes that the Elphicke-House review into the role of local authorities in housing supply identified that different housing delivery organisations offer different strengths and opportunities. The Government welcomes approaches where local housing companies are developing new homes for market sale or purchasing private rented homes for the accommodation of homeless households, through an appropriate legal entity structure and/or the borrowing does not count as public sector borrowing.However, it is not acceptable for local authorities to establish new wholly owned or controlled housing companies deliberately to avoid the Government’s reinvigorated Right to Buy policy and the limits on indebtedness put in place to help address the inherited deficit. Specifically, the Government will not support the establishment of such companies where they are developing or acquiring and retaining new social or affordable units for rental purposes. The Government believes that local authorities should support people to achieve their aspiration for home ownership through the Right to Buy. Supporting sustainable and secure buildings We will shortly be laying before the House the fifth report required under the provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004. The Report considers the progress towards the sustainability of the building stock in England over the preceding two years. During the period we have taken two important further steps on the road to zero carbon homes in 2016. We have improved the energy efficiency of new homes by over 30 per cent since coming into office delivering typical fuel bill savings for new home-owners of £200 per annum. We have also introduced in the Infrastructure Act 2015 the powers needed to enable off-site carbon abatement measures (Allowable Solutions) to contribute to achieving the Zero Carbon Standard. During the period we have consulted on our proposals to rationalise technical housing standards through the Housing Standards Review. We are streamlining them whilst maintaining essential standards for sustainability including the opportunity for higher water efficiency standards to be set in water stressed areas. The Government has sought to balance sustainability with the need to build new homes and promote economic growth. This report and its predecessors sets out our strong record in achieving that goal. I hope these issues illustrate how this Government’s long-term economic plan is working and that building more houses, giving more power to local communities, and helping people move onto and up the housing ladder.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS441

Open Recruitment

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles) made the following Written Ministerial Statement on Friday 20 March 2015.I would like to update the House on what my Department is doing to increase transparency in government. My Department has taken a series of steps to deliver savings for taxpayers. Staff costs for core DCLG have fallen from £216 million in 2009-10 to £95 million in 2013-14, a reduction of 56 per cent in cash terms and an annual saving of £121 million a year. The number of staff has been reduced by 57 per cent from 3,781 full-time equivalent in 2009-10 to 1,622 in 2013-14. Spending on temporary staff (which can be cheaper than permanent staff for specific projects) has fallen from £14.4 million in 2009-10 to £3.3 million in 2013-14. Spending on consultancies has fallen from £36.6 million in 2009-10 to £0.5 million in 2013-14. Yet there remains a need to replace staff from time to time due to general turnover. The Coalition Agreement pledged: “We will open up Whitehall recruitment by publishing Central Government job vacancies online”. So, in April 2014, my Department became the first Whitehall Department to do this systematically. Under the situation we inherited from the last Administration, between a third and half of all job vacancies were not advertised to the wider public, but only to the Civil Service. This was the last closed shop – and a practice that was unfair not just to those in the voluntary or private sector, but also those who worked elsewhere in the public sector (such as local government). Under the last Administration, the practice also resulted in higher spending on consultancy contracts and recruitment agencies to bring in private sector expertise. All jobs are now advertised online at: https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/. From April 2014 to the beginning of March, we have made 136 appointments: • 30% were filled internally; • 30% were filled by applicants from other Departments; and • 40% were filled by external candidates.  I believe this provides a good balance between promoting hard working staff internally, tapping into the expertise of the Civil Service, and benefiting from the skills and experience of those from the wider public, voluntary and private sector.  Parts of the Civil Service has been somewhat shy about recognising the benefits of this policy. I hope the wider government will embrace such openness in the months ahead.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS439

Department for Energy and Climate Change

FUNDING OF THE OIL AND GAS AUTHORITY:  CONSULTATION ON LEVY DESIGN

Baroness Verma: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Davey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today. Today I am launching a consultation on the design of the levy to fund the new Oil and Gas Authority (OGA).We are working at a great pace to establish and empower the OGA to be a strong and influential regulator, equipped with the necessary powers to regulate and steward the UK Continental Shelf.To ensure the OGA is sufficiently resourced to deliver its remit of maximising economic recovery from the UKCS, and in line with the established precedent for other regulatory bodies, we have determined that the OGA should recover its costs from the companies who benefit from its services.Whilst the Government has agreed to contribute £3m per year for five years starting from April 2016 to ensure the OGA is well funded from the outset, the OGA’s ongoing costs will be met by a combination of the extant fees and charges regime, and a new levy on industry. We agree with industry that it is important that the levy is simple, transparent and cost-reflective.This consultation sets out details of the allocation methodology and the proposed levy rates. In line with the early focus of the OGA, we have determined that initially we will levy only offshore petroleum licence holders as (in the short term) the OGA will incur costs related to these licence holders. We intend that the OGA will begin collecting the levy in October 2015, subject to regulations. The consultation will be open for four weeks and will conclude on 20 April 2015 and the Government welcomes views on the proposals and invites comments through the consultation process.I will be depositing a copy of this consultation in the Libraries of the House. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS443

Northern Ireland Office

Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC CBE on the National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland

Baroness Randerson: My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following statement: This is a summary of the main findings from the report by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, covering the period from 1 December 2013 to 31 December 2014: “Throughout the year I have been briefed extensively on the state of threat in Northern Ireland. The context in which national security activities are performed in Northern Ireland remains challenging. There have been successes in 2014 and a number of trials of significant alleged terrorists are pending. This is a very dangerous, unpredictable terrorist threat, though one which is much smaller than in the days of PIRA terrorist activity. The authorities are achieving a good level of attrition. Most of the public lead lives unaffected by terrorism. I regard 2014 as a year of continuing success in thwarting and detecting terrorism. Pending trials are likely to demonstrate this, as have trials during the year. However, there is no sign of reduced ambition in the minds of terrorists, and limited evidence of a lack of capacity on their part. Attrition and continued effort against the dissident republican groups remain a paramount requirement. The number of ongoing investigations remains high. The work is painstaking and, for some involved, potentially dangerous. Peace is in no small way the result of these efforts by PSNI and MI5 personnel. In preparing this report I have considered the current threat level, and what I have learned of events of a terrorist nature during the year. There have been several serious incidents during 2014, as well as a spate of crude letter bombs. Once again the parading season proved a challenge. Although there were some injuries as a result of sectarian clashes, it was more peaceful than in 2013, with fewer injuries to police and public. During 2014, I have met a range of stakeholders. I have engaged with PSNI and MI5 and examined the relationship between them and others. I have held meetings with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary concerning activities relevant to this Report, and with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive's Minister of Justice, David Ford MLA. The liaison between Mr Ford and those responsible for national security issues is satisfactory. I have also engaged with the Independent Human Rights Advisor to the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) and the Board itself. The Policing Board can feel reassured that the Human Rights Advisor is well able to discharge her duties in respect of national security. The Board has been shown the material reports in relation to Northern Ireland of the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners, subject to minor redactions. Compliance is at ‘best in class’ level. I am grateful to NIO Ministers for their close interest in national security matters discussed; meetings with Ministers have occurred. Ministers are always very well informed on all material security issues. I am satisfied that the periodic briefings provided to me have been full and not selective, and that I have a good understanding of relevant matters. I note that when matters of moment occur, active steps are taken to ensure that I am briefed. When I request access, it is given. I have asked questions again this year about the relationship between MI5 and PSNI staff working alongside each other in security operations in Northern Ireland. Comments made to me in 2014 about the relationship between the two services were strongly mutually supportive. That they work together well and in the national interest is beyond question. The effectiveness of what they do is demonstrated by the successful disruptions that have taken place over the year. This year once again I have reviewed in some detail the arrangements for Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS). Overall, the use of CHIS has been effective. All activity and decision making concerning CHIS are documented carefully and European Convention on Human Rights issues are fully considered. There is a rigorous legal and policy framework for dealing with CHIS. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, and associated orders and codes, provide the legal framework for authorising and managing CHIS within the UK in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and particularly the right to privacy. It requires that use of a CHIS is subject to prior senior officer authorisation, limits the purposes for which the CHIS may be used, ensures detailed records are maintained, establishes independent oversight and inspection, and provides an independent appeals mechanism to investigate complaints. I have also considered a number of issues relating to terrorism prosecutions including arrangements for the continuation of the temporary and renewable non-jury trial arrangements provided under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. The situation continues to improve. The number of cases requiring non-jury trial diminishes. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland uses considerable and proper care in the identification and selection of such cases. It is fully recognised that the norm is jury trial but the residual serious and lethal threat of terrorism justifies the continuation of the non-jury system. There is no evidence of any disadvantage in terms of outcome to Defendants in the current system of non-jury trials. They are as likely to be acquitted as in jury trials, and have the advantage of reasoned judgments, and less inhibited access to appeals. Part of the criminal justice setting in need of appraisal is sentencing in terrorism related cases. Generally such sentences are considerably shorter than comparable sentences in England and Wales, with notably different tariffs in murder cases. I remain as concerned as before about the disclosure regime operated in scheduled cases in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales issues of Public Interest Immunity and other disclosure issues are dealt with by the trial judge, who of course is not the tribunal of fact save in the rarest of trial exceptions, or in ‘Newton’ hearings where there has been a plea of guilty on a disputed factual basis. In Northern Ireland in non-jury trials there is a separate disclosure judge. This still leads not only to delays in trials, but to a disconnect between the day by day reality of the trial and the insulated disclosure process. I remain concerned that the disclosure issue outlined above is a real difficulty in dealing with non-jury cases. Given the high regard held generally for the quality of the reasoned judgments given in such cases, and also for the fairness of the trials, I find it difficult to accept that there would be any diminution in actual fairness if the trial judge dealt with disclosure too. I have enquired about the use of intercept evidence. I remain satisfied that there is solid scrutiny and review of interception, in an environment in which communications technology is developing quickly. As before, I have asked about loyalist paramilitaries. These are people and groups whose real interest is in making money from crime. The authorities are well sighted against these organisations. I have enquired about violent Islamism in Northern Ireland. For the present this is not a significant threat. Continued vigilance and the maintenance of counter-terrorism resourcing are essential. However, once again I have drawn comfort from the successful joint operations between MI5 and the PSNI. Normality is a genuine and mostly realisable ambition, rather than merely an aspiration. I have measured performance in 2014 against the five key principles identified in relation to national security in Annex E to the St Andrews Agreement of October 2006. My conclusions in relation to Annex E are set out in the attached Table.”Text of Annex E ConclusionsFurther to reinforce this comprehensive set of safeguards, the Government confirms that it accepts and will ensure that effect is given to the five key principles which the Chief Constable has identified as crucial to the effective operation of the new arrangements, viz:All Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI. There is compliance. Arrangements are in place to deal with any suspected malfeasance by a PSNI or MI5 officer.PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist investigations and operations relating to Northern Ireland. There is compliance.Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures. There is compliance. Dissemination policy has developed since the new arrangements came into force.The great majority of national security CHIS in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing police handling protocols. The majority of CHIS are run by the PSNI. Protocols have not stood still. A review of existing protocols and the development of up to date replacements should always be work in progress and clearly accountable.There will be no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance.The PSNI must continue to comply. The Policing Board, with the advice of their Human Rights Advisor as a key component, will continue the role of monitoring compliance. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS436